Re: OpenDNS CGNAT Issues

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

Sure… The point was that short of that, anyone in their right mind wouldn’t bother.

Owen


> On Sep 12, 2018, at 7:10 AM, Kenny Taylor <kenny.taylor () kccd edu> wrote:
>
> For a truckload of gold, I’m pretty sure most of us would make that work J
>  
> Kenny
>  
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kenny.taylor=kccd.edu () nanog org <mailto:nanog-bounces+kenny.taylor=kccd.edu () nanog 
> org>> On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 10:04 PM
> To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com <mailto:morrowc.lists () gmail com>>
> Cc: nanog list <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org>>
> Subject: Re: OpenDNS CGNAT Issues
>  
>  
>
>
> On Sep 11, 2018, at 21:58 , Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com <mailto:morrowc.lists () gmail com>> wrote:
>  
>  
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:06 PM Jerry Cloe <jerry () jtcloe net <mailto:jerry () jtcloe net>> wrote:
> OpenDNS, or anyone for that matter, should never see 100.64/10 ip's. If they do, something is wrong at the source, 
> and OpenDNS wouldn't be able to reply anyway (or at least have the reply route back to the user).
>  
> maybeopendns peers directly with such an eyeball network? and in that case maybe they have an agreement to accept 
> traffic from the 100.64 space?
>  
> They’d only be able to do one such agreement per routing environment.
>  
> Managing that would be _UGLY_ for the first one and __UGLY__ at scale for anything more than one.
>  
> It also pretty much eliminates potential for geographic diversity and anycast for a provider in a local geography.
>  
> Certainly not something I’d choose to do if I were OpenDNS unless someone arrived with a very large truck full of 
> gold, diamonds, or other valuable hard assets.
>  
> Owen